Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:58:27PM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>>Followup to:  <cdpee5$otu$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
>>By author:    Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
>>In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>>
>>>I confess I feel that this new model is a return to the bad old days 
>>>when the stable tree wasn't. Sounds as if Andrew is bored with the idea 
>>>of letting 2.7 be the development tree and just being the gatekeeper of 
>>>STABLE new features for 2.6. Perhaps 2.7 should be opened and Andrew 
>>>will have a place to play, and features can drift to 2.6 more slowly.
>>>
>>
>>I think the discussion we had at the kernel summit has been somewhat
>>misrepresented by LWN et al.  What we discussed was really more of a
>>"soft fork", with the -mm tree serving the purpose of 2.7, rather than
>>a hard fork with a separate maintainer and putting ourselves in
>>back/forward-porting hell all over again.
>>
>>Note that Andrew's -mm tree *specificially* has infrastructure to keep
>>changes apart and thus backporting to 2.6 mainstream of patches which
>>have proven themselves becomes trivial.
>>...
> 
> 
> One problem from a user's point of view is that removal of obsolete code 
> that works sufficiently for some users.
> 
> Andrew said explicitely in a mail to linux-kernel that he'd consider 
> removing devfs "mid-2005" - and it didn't sound as if this would only be 
> a -mm "feature".
> 
> Even if 2.7 is started this doesn't has to imply that it has to be 
> flooded with big changes - a short 2.7 with relativley few invasive 
> changes might also be an option.

I would consider removing devfs or cryptoloop invasive, since they would 
mean some people just flat-out couldn't use the kernel with their 
existing system.

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me